8/10: Partisanship Is The New Black

Faced with the reality of an independent run by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), progressive bloggers are broadly singing the praises of strict partisanship. A major theme in DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas book Crashing The Gate outfits like the NDN are coming around to the view that the only answer to a Rove-led GOP is unflinching unity to the party and not single issues.

In the wake of Lieberman's announced independent run, progressive bloggers are uniformly rejecting issues-based bipartisanship and embracing strict partisanship. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "After watching Bush spend his term not just refusing to compromise on a single issue, but declaring his intent via "signing statements" to utterly reject the bills he was signing into law, it strikes me as hilarious to see conservatives and their media enablers decry the rise of the Democratic partisan. We're here. It's good. And when we have a Republican Party once again willing to compromise, then we can start talking about "bipartisanship". As mcjoan wrote: Bipartisanship only works when the other side compromises, too. Otherwise it's just capitulation."

Kos links to similar thoughts from NDN's Simon Rosenberg: "In this new era, partisanship is a virtue. The conservatives rise to power, and their utter failure to govern responsibly or effectively, requires a new progressive politics of confrontation, not accommodation. This new politics may be uncomfortable to those used to an America governed by Democrats and progressive values, but for our politics and values to triumph progressives must and are learning how to resist "cutting deals," working to "get things done" on terms set by an irresponsible governing majority."

Over at MyDDJerome Armstrong sings the same note: "I was up in New Hampshire yesterday with college age Sierra Club activists, doing a back and forth debate/discussion with the Sierra Club President, Lisa Renstrom, over the issue of their embracing partisan politics, and advancing the progressive movement ahead of their own single-issue advocacy. I laid out the argument that single-issue advocacy was something that seemed to work in a previous time, but not in today's partisan atmosphere, and that if a substantive, transformative change in environmental policy was to happen, it would occur because the millions of environmentalists decided to join the netroots/grassroots activists now taking over the Democratic Party."

Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe cited evidence from 8/8 GOP primaries to boost the partisan claim: "As the purge of Congressman Joe Schwartz in the Michigan GOP primary yesterday shows, the Republicans are not interested in bipartisanship. The GOP is quite clear what their ideological goals are and are just looking for wayward Democrats to support those goals-- but some "principled" bipartisanship like Lieberman is trying to espouse is a bit of a joke, given that the GOP has no interest in deals on anything other than the areas like the war where Lieberman already agrees with GOP ideology."

Progressive bloggers are in brainstorm mode as Lieberman signals his intent to continue his independent run. Mark Schmitt at TAPPED believes Lieberman "eventually...will give up" but "that at the end, Lieberman needs a dignified way out." Schmitt allows that Lieberman "doesn't deserve it, not at all" but suggests bloggers "find a way to give him a dignified way out, and accord him exactly the level of respect for his service that Lamont did last night, which was considerable and was deserved."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe picked up on the theme: "Most Dems who've now endorsed Ned Lamont have stopped short of publicly urging Lieberman to leave the race. Perhaps for good reason: Publicly slamming Lieberman now, right after his searing defeat and his morning making a defiant stand on the talk shows, could get him to dig in further. So what to do?" Some reader suggestions:

• Dan K: Stop talking about Lieberman. Start talking about Lamont! The best way to weaken any remaining legs in the Lieberman Senate bid is just to generate lots of excitement about Lamont.
• entprof: Lieberman will be out by mid September. His polls will start dropping. His campaign will increasingly look like a vanity campaign. The wise-men of the Democratic party will quietly explain to him that if he stays in and loses he's history, but if he drops out works hard for a Democratic victory in '08 there is a strong possibility of a Cabinet post. In the meantime he can spend two years earning way too damn much money on K.
• destor23: "Maybe we should be less worried about getting him to drop out and more worried about delivering a sound spanking in November. I know, it's not ideal, but it might be the best mindset to have."
• drv: "Isn't it obvious what to do to get Lieberman out of the race? Stop giving him money! It's the mother's milk of politics and without it he'd quickly go away. Any Dem who gives him money from now on is doing so at their own peril, politically, that is, and should be told so if they don't know it already.

Also at TAPPEDEzra Klein sees the situation only getting uglier: "To add to the post-mortems of the day, my guess is that the relationship between Joe Lieberman and the Democratic Party is about to get a whole lot more fraught. Previously, there was a real unwillingness on the part of the party mandarins to go against Joe who, even if he were to run as an independent, would still be bound in the Senate by long ties of friendship and esteem with the Democratic caucus. But now that so many from the caucus have bowed to base pressure and endorsed Ned Lamont -- I'm thinking here of Dodd, Clinton, Feingold, Kerry, Bayh, Kennedy, Schumer, Emmanuel, Reid, Obama etc -- Lieberman is apt to feel as betrayed by his colleagues as he does by his voters. That radically increases the chance he'll switch parties or leverage his independence against his side which, in turn, radically increases the importance that the party kill off his candidacy and ensure Lamont's election. So Lieberman's in a rough cycle here -- his loss in the primary forced his colleagues to turn on his candidacy which, in turn, forces them to seriously support Lamont lest Lieberman exact revenge."

At The Huffington Post, a hit-Liberman-now-and-hit-him-hard consensus was forming:

• Arianna Huffington: "But it's not enough for party leaders to back Lamont, they have to do everything in their power -- publicly and privately -- to pressure Lieberman to drop his For the Sake of My Ego run. And that includes making it crystal clear that if Lieberman insists on running and somehow wins, they will refuse to allow him to caucus with them in the future. They should also, as David Sirota and Kos suggest, remove Lieberman from his committee assignments. Bottom line: all Democrats should immediately begin treating Lieberman as what he is -- a party-ditching, party-pooping, control-of-Congress-risking spoiler, ie a danger to the Party."
• David Sirota: "Democratic politicians in Washington are tripping over themselves to issue statements officially endorsing Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Ned Lamont. That's a very good thing. But what isn't so good is that most of these Democrats are blathering on about what a great guy Joe Lieberman is - even as Lieberman is leaving the Democratic Party. ... D.C. Democrats realize they absolutely have to officially support Lamont because of the election results, they also are engaging in a wink-and-nod strategy, doing everything they can to still protect Lieberman and tacitly undermine the will of primary voters. ... The reaction to Joe Lieberman from Democrats should not be "wow, what a great guy he is" - it should be "we must crush this craven, selfish anti-democratic opportunist because he is trying to destroy the Democratic Party and ignore the will of voters."

TAPPED's Micahel Tomasky still believes Lieberman will eventually succumb to Dem pressure, but offer four reasons why he will not anyways:

• 1. Leverage: What leverage over Lieberman do all these people have? Not much; just moral suasion. They can't make him do anything.
• 2. Polls: Undoubtedly a 3-way poll will come out next week. What will it say? If it says something like Lamont 47, Lieberman 33, and Schlesinger 20, then that's pressure (and leverage for the Dems). But if it's more like 40-40-20, then that's a boost for Joe.
• 3. Money: Will Lieberman still have access to dough? His cash-on-hand as of July 19 (the last filing) was $3.5 million. Assuming he both spent a lot and raised a lot since then, he's sitting on a nice chunk of change. And he wouldn't really have to campaign hard until mid-September.
• 4. The Pundit Class: When all is said and done, the pundits are Lieberman's most loyal constituency. What is Cokie thinking today? Broder? This Sunday's shows will be key here.

Fellow TAPPERAlec Oveis adds: "I would include the candidate's personality. The man loves playing the martyr, taking the role of the besieged man of "principle." Just as he loves criticizing fellow Democrats about their positions on the war, he'll take pleasure in attacking Lamont and his backers in the general election."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at CBS News exit poll results showing Lamont beating Lieberman 49-36 (12% "not sure") in a three-way match up among those who voted 8/8 and writes: "And that number will go down as the campaign progresses. Lieberman will focus his efforts on independent voters, by far the state's largest voting bloc."

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly looks at the same poll and comments: "Basically...all of Lamont's supporters think Lieberman should stand down, hardly a surprising opinion, and 20% of Lieberman's own supporters think he should stand down. Presumably, this means that 80% of Lieberman's supporters still support him and plan to vote for him as an independent in November. If a substantial portion of Republican voters split their tickets and vote for him as well, he could beat Lamont. ... Basically, Lamont has the support of about 60% of Connecticut's Democrats already, and it won't be long before that's up to 70% or more. That's more than enough to win, and unless Lieberman is even less tethered to reality than it seems, he'll figure this out pretty soon and bow out.

Over at TNRJason Zengerle reaches into Quinnipiac's archives for a guess on how GOPers might react: "Check out this QPoll from 1/06: 75 percent of Connecticut Republicans believed Lieberman deserved another term. It's hard to know where that number is right now. Part of me thinks that it must be lower, given how Lieberman's fortunes have obviously declined since January. Then again, maybe Lieberman's defeat in a Democratic Primary has solidified his support among Republicans. I guess we'll know more after the next QPoll. Either way, I think Lieberman can count on a good amount of support from Connecticut Republicans--which means that if he can hold on to 80 percent of his Democratic support, he's got a very good shot at winning an independent bid."

Kausfiles taps an emailer for some negative Lieberman news: "a lot of loyalist Dems who voted for Joe will vote for Ned in November as their nominee (count me as one of many such of whom I am already aware -- a lot of people in the Distefano for Gov HQs last night -- and not just Ned partisans -- were booing, hissing and cat-calling Joe's, again, self-serving speech bemoaning nasty, excessive partisanship, hello?). I would not at all be surprised to see Ned draw 70%+ of Democrats who turn out to vote this fall, maybe even 75+.

Finally, Kos believes the lack of a natural consultant constituency will doom Lieberman's effort: "Really, what Democratic consulting firm wants to be splashed all over the blogs for working with a turncoat Democrat? And it's obvious that the party committees have little patience for Lieberman at this point. He's standing in the way of a unified Democratic juggernaut for this fall. ... Lieberman will be hard pressed to put together an operation unless he goes over to the dark side. That's probably why Karl Rove called him today. The offer must be on the table. The question is, will Lieberman resist as his predicament becomes increasingly desperate.

BBC World News listener Atrios "realized how much Ned Lamont's victory truly matters" when a "lipped English voice suddenly" reported Lamont's victory over Lieberman. Atrios felt: "A different and saner debate might, just might, be possible at last. We can now point out that bipartisanship doesn't mean turning into a blind sheep in the administration's flock, just as approaching the center of the bed doesn't mean jumping over your partner and hugging the other side. We can start a real debate about what fighting terrorism entails to keep us all safe, and how to do it without turning the international politics of this country into the best recruiting aid AlQaeda ever dreamt about. Or so I hope."

Meanwhile Kos celebrated Lamont's victory as a unifying moment for Dems on Iraq: "So now, Democrats are united in their desire to withdraw our troops from Iraq. We're offering a clear distinction to the Republican's "stay the course" to disaster spiel. ... That's why Republicans are freaking out. They've put on their happy face for public consumption, but their actions don't lie. They're not happy to lose their useful idiot inside the Democratic caucus, and they don't really want to fight an election with the war front and center. ... It's game on. And we'll see in a few weeks just how much Republican candidates truly want to emphasize their war support in their campaigns."

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly looks at Jacob Weisberg's Slatepiece GOP euphoria over Lamont's win and concedes: "As I'm reluctant to agree with him, Weisberg has a point: aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it. Emphasis counts, and this widespread silence makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that liberal bloggers just don't find the subject very engaging."

But at Talking Points MemoJoshua Micah Marshall looks at a similar thesis from Mike Allen in Time and argues CT SEN is not about Iraq and isn't even important: "I don't think most voters around the country really know or care that much about Joe Lieberman. And to the extent that they know who he is, outside of the committed partisans on both sides, they don't realize or think or imagine (as the Russert/Kristol/Matalin/Broder axis does) that he's this symbolically resonant figure on whom the fate of the nation may alas rest. ... The heart of the matter here is that everyone knows Joe in DC. They like him. They think he's a nice guy, which he is. ... But really he's just a pol who ignored his constituents, went into serious denial about a major foreign policy disaster, was more lockstep with the president's non-policy than many Republicans, and got bounced by his constituents. ... That's politics. And that's accountability. And, really? It's not that big a deal."

Looking at winners and losers from 8/8 Matt Stoller at MyDD announces: "Politically speaking, the biggest winners out of all of this, aside from Lamont and his campaign backers, are the blogs and Maxine Waters. Waters is now a kingmaker, a key piece of the magic coalition that struck down the former VP nominee in what seemed like an impossible race.

TAPPED's Michael Tomasky meanwhile isn't so sure Lamont did a good job choosing his company 8/8: "Lamont did himself zero favors last night by having Sharpton and Jesse Jackson standing next to him. NO, not for that reason. And I know they helped him get votes. But they did not belong on the stage, because a) they're not from Connecticut, and b) they do have baggage (especially Sharpton; Jesse at this point is mostly sort of past his prime). ... (Ned: When someone calls you an "Al Sharpton Democrat," the idea is not to go out and become one!)."

Also at TAPPEDMark Schmitt voiced a similar concern: "The disappointing thing about having Sharpton over his shoulder is that it took away from the actually very impressive tableau of people on stage with Lamont. Not exactly the crowd of latte-swilling suburban reformers you would be led to expect! I don't know my minor Connecticut political figures by sight anymore, but I did spot the House Majority Leader up there, Chris Donovan, and some guys who sure look like labor guys, and some Latinos and a good number of African-Americans who were not named Sharpton or Jackson or Waters."

Over at DailyKos, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) did not appreciate Lieberman's use of Sharpton et al. to attack Lamont: "I am already concerned that Senator Lieberman's independent bid seems destined to divide Democrats in the most insidious ways. His supporters have called Ned Lamont an "Al Sharpton Democrat" and this morning Lieberman stated on the Today Show that he was committed "to bringing the Democratic Party back from the extreme, back from Ned Lamont and Maxine Waters." It is not lost on me that both of these appeals seem designed to peel off support for Mr. Lamont by highlighting his support from prominent African Americans. This type of rhetoric degrades the political process and should not be tolerated."

Political Arithmetik's Univ. of WI professor Charles Franklin has many lengthy and valuable posts on CBS News exit poll data. Observations include:

• The data here suggest that at least those who waited until the end to make up their mind did in fact give more support to Lieberman. Lamont got 44% of the last minute deciders, to Lieberman's 54%, while Lamont won 53-46 among those who decided a month or more before the election.
• Where voters were most energized, they turned out in high proportions for Ned Lamont. Where they reluctantly went to the polls, Lieberman was the beneficiary. Lamont's problem here is getting a high percentage of high turnout but in small places.
• The class lines reflected in the voting pattern are interesting, if not surprising. They also point to the division in the Democratic party between the highly educated and well paid compared to the traditional working class base. The latter often don't share the ideology of the former.
• African-Americans actually voted for Lamont at higher rates than did whites.
• The CBS/NYT exit poll in Connecticut would seem to undercut those who claim there was a big class divide between Lamont's allegedly upscale voters and Lieberman's allegedly working class voters--at least a big income class divide. ... There was a split along educational lines, though, with Lieberman winning the "high school or less" category 59% to 39%. More evidence, I guess, that "class" in this country means education level, not how much money you make.

Looking at actual voting data Mark Leon Goldberg at TAPPED worries: "Looking at the town-by-town returns, it seems that Lieberman took the lower Naugatuck river valley quite handily. And to the extent that Democrats were drawn to Lamont primarily for his anti-war views, we anti-Iraq war liberals should be concerned by this. Connecticut has a reputation for being the land of Wall Street executives, hip-hop moguls, retired tennis stars, and Vince McMahon. But just to the northeast of the ridiculously wealthy towns populated by those types sits the predominately white working class lower Naugatuck valley. This includes the towns of Ansonia, Derby, Shelton, Beacon Falls, Oxford and Naugatuck. Lieberman won each of these towns (except Oxford) by a very solid margin."

RNC chair Ken Mehlman obviously noticed that 8/8 was lefties' "day in the sun" and he was doing some serious righty blog outreach yesterday. Robert B. Bluey at Human Events Online was on a "call with bloggers from the Conservative Edge, Wizbang Politics and Powerline. The RNC's outreach to bloggers came after a morning of spinning Lieberman's defeat. The party released a web video documenting the "Defeatocrats" and Mehlman gave a speech in Cleveland criticizing the "blame America first" attitude of Democrats.

"On the call, I asked Mehlman to assess the impact of Lamont's victory on the Netroots effort to raise money and build support for Lamont among liberal bloggers and online activists." Mehlman: "We all need to put it in perspective. Think about this. The state of Connecticut is 34% Democrat; 40% of those people voted. So you have about 14% of eligible voters participating. Ned Lamont got about 50% of the vote. So what you have is 7.25% of the voters in Connecticut determining that Joe Lieberman, nominee for vice president in 2000, a guy who helped build the state party, is not welcome in the Democratic Party anymore. There's no question the Netroots will feel emboldened. But it's useful to put it in perspective. The media's immediate response is there's this massive movement; 7.25% of a liberal state is what decided this election."

"Brian Goettl at the Conservative Edge asked Mehlman if there was any chance the GOP will ask Republican Alan Schlesinger to drop out." Mehlman: "I don't know the answer to that question. I think that's unlikely, but I don't know the answer. ... I think this is something Connecticut Republicans will have to decide how they want to handle, and each Connecticut Republican will have to make that decision."

Right Wing News was there too and reports that Mehlman was "hammering away" at CT primary results. "He pointed out that Lieberman is a liberal who opposed ANWR, opposed banning partial birth abortion, but that he was purged because he supported the war. Mehlman added that shows that the Democratic Party is isolationist, defeatist, and blames America first. Additionally, he said that the Democrats want to cut and run in Iraq, which would let the terrorists win and he also noted that Lieberman's loss shows that there is no room for anyone in the Democratic Party who doesn't agree with the most liberal, most isolationist, and most defeatist activists. My reaction? It's great to see the RNC really going after the Democrats. If the Dems want to run as the wimp party, that's just dying to give up and hand victory to our enemies in Iraq, then we should be calling them on it. It's too bad Bush isn't a little more active in going after these guys like Mehlman did today."

AmericaBLOG's John in DC donned his tin-foil hat and said it was "queer that the emergency is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman's loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror. Bottom line: Joe Lieberbush lost. The message is spreading across the land that incumbents who embrace the president are in serious trouble. And the Republicans needed to divert attention, to stop this meme in its tracks, and lo' and behold we have our first terror alert that I can recall since the last election, and it's our first ever Red Alert! What a coincidence!"

Edward H. Crane at Cato at Liberty believes the anti-war movement would be stronger were it not for campaign finance reform:

Ned Lamont's remarkable victory over three-term incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman yesterday exposes the true nature of contribution limits. They aren't about the "appearance of corruption." They're about preventing a challenger from having a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The one "loophole" the Supremes created with their incoherent 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo was that candidates have rights the rest of us don't have. Apparently, they can't be corrupted by their own money, so there are no limits on what they can spend on their own campaigns.

More than 60 percent of Ned's campaign expenditures came from Ned. Without Ned, Ned loses. In fact, no political observer thought any candidate dependent on a $2000 contribution limit had any kind of chance of ousting Lieberman. Ned was a very poor candidate. Inarticulate with zero charisma. But by spending his own money he enfranchised the Democrats of Connecticut who otherwise, given the contribution limits, were disenfranchised. The Democrats in Connecticut hate the war in Iraq, Lieberman has rather energetically endorsed it. Yet the federal election laws would have assured Lieberman reelection were it not for the "loophole."

This anti-war election is directly analogous to my late friend Gene McCarthy's race for the presidency in 1968. Gene used six-figure contributions from wealthy liberals like Stewart Mott who opposed the war in Vietnam to fund a campaign that ousted a sitting president from his own party. Gene often said that had the '74 amendments to the FECA been in place in '68, he would not have run. Campaign finance laws should not have the power to change American history. But they do. Give everyone the "loophole" of being able to spend as much of their own money to promote their political beliefs and we'll throw a remarkable number of incumbents out of office. And with good candidates instead of bumbling millionaires.

LEST WE FORGET: Buck Passing

Dilbert's Scott Adams passes on this sure-fire tip for parents trapped at Best Buy who only want to buy their child one video game:

6-year old: Yay! A new video game!
Me: Put on your shoes and you can go pick it out with me.
6-year old: Can we buy TWO video games?
Me: No, just one.
6-year old: Why can't we buy two? You're rich.

Well, at this point, I'm totally screwed. I feel a responsibility to give good reasons for my decisions whenever possible. I refuse to use "because I said so" or "we can't afford it" because he'd see through those in a heartbeat. And I couldn't lecture to him about the benefits of moderation because at the time we were preparing for a cruise to the Caribbean. I had nothing. ... Luckily, what I lack in parenting skills I make up for in weasel experience. My strategy, and it has been extremely successful so far, is to offer such boringly technical explanations that his 6-year old eyes glaze over and he wanders away. For example:

Me: Well, the reason you can have one but not two video games will require an explanation that spans the fields of economics and psychology. Pull up a chair and I'll begin by discussing the future expected value of good character development versus the present incremental value of an extra video game. Would it help to review the concept of discounted cash flows?
6-year old: Never mind. I'll ask Mom.

My method has the advantage that he understands I have a reason, and he's reminded that I'm still smarter than he is. I plan to milk this approach until he starts reading my blog.